Postscript to the Article: “The Social-Democrats and the Election Campaign”

Published:Proletary, No. 7, November 10, 1906.

      Published according to theProletarytext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1965,

      Moscow,Volume 11,

      pages271-274.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Theabove-mentioned article was already written when
G. V. Plekhanov’s “Open Letter to Class-Conscious
Workers” appeared in the newspaperTovarishch. In that letter
Plekhanov, “manoeuvring” between the Left wing of the bourgeoisie
and the Bight wing of the Social-Democrats, finally breaks both with the
principles of international revolutionary Social-Democracy and with the
decisions of the Unity Congress of our Party. The Party Congress formally
forbade all blocs whatsoever with bourgeois parties. The class-conscious,
organised proletarian at his Party meetings calls all blocs with the bourgeoisie
“betrayal of the cause of the proletariat”; in his article inTovarishchand in his letter to the Party organisations, L. Martov,
adopting the Bolshevik, i.e., the consistent revolutionary standpoint,
emphatically expresses his opposition to all blocs at the first stage of the
elections. “On the first question [“blocs” or electoral
pacts],” writes Martov, “I would recommend that we insist,in
conformity with the resolution of the Congress, upon complete independenceduring our participationin the first stageof the elections, i.e., at
the stage when we come before the masses.” Plekhanov regards this method of
presenting the question as “misconceived hostility to
compromise”. “Where we cannot be sure of the victory of our
candidate,” writes Plekhanov, “it is our duty to enter into an
agreement with other parties who wish to fight against our old

			    regime.”[1]While thus sanctioning agreementswith bourgeois parties in spite of the decision of the Congress, Plekhanov,
    however, displays his “political sagacity” by foreseeing cases
    when we should not enter into such agreements. He writes: “Where
    there is no doubt that we shall succeed ingetting our candidate

			     elected[2]we can and must actindependentlyof the other
    parties.” What a wonderful piece of “political sagacity”! Where we are
    sure of getting our candidate elected ourselves we must do it
    ourselves. Where we are not sure, we must apply for assistance ... to
    those “who wish to fight against the old regime”, or else he] p
    these “wishers” to get their candidate elected. And where those
    “who wish to fight” are sure of getting their candidates elected
    themselves, what do you think, 0 contributor to the Cadet press, Plekhanov,
    will they be so anxious to conclude an agreement with us? Indeed, if we are
    talking about agreements, every political infant is aware that they are
    required only in cases where a party is not sure of getting its candidates
    elected by its own unaided efforts. We, however, are opposed to all
    agreements even under such circumstances. But G. V. Plekhanov, like a true
    knight of freedom, sounds the tocsin in the CadetTovarishchand
    calls together all those “who wish to fight”.... Come, all ye
    “wishers”! The proletariat is fighting, you— “wish”
    to fight! Excellent.... If that is not enough for a proletarian, he must
    assuredly be an “enemy of freedom”.

Thus,the leader of the Mensheviks, the darling of the Cadets, forgetting all
that he said after the dissolution of the Duma, is little by little, step by
step, sinking to the level of ... Cherevanin.... With his usual
“swiftness, dash and unerring eye” Plekhanov is rushing to the
extreme right of our Right wing. Martov is left far behind;Sotsial-Demokratcan hardly keep pace with its ideological
leader. And the organ of the
Central Committee, after a long-winded argument about the class character of
our election campaign, proposes an intricate system of agreements, building a
ladder by which Social-Democrats should descend to the level of the Cadets. At
first, suggestsSotsial-Demokrat, independent, i.e., class action
where we have chances of success; where there are no chances of success, we must
combine withthe bourgeois parties which “are striving with us for the convocation of a
constituent assembly”; if these parties do not want the constituent
assembly—so much the worse (this is the third, last, anti-class and
anti-democratic step)— we shall combine with them nevertheless. How the
Central Committee, which was elected by the Congress to carry out the decisions
of the Congress, contrives to act in violation of these decisions is a secret
known only to itself. The fact remains that at the present moment we are
witnessing the very disgraceful (for Social-Democracy) spectacle of “the
crab crawling backwards” and the “swan straining skyward” on
the editorial board of the leading, central organ, when on a question of such
import to us as electoral tactics there is neither unity of thought nor unity of
action, not only in the Party as a whole, but even in the “leading”
faction in that Party. What country and what Socialist Party, except, perhaps,
the most opportunist, would tolerate such political depravity? And the
remarkable fact is that it is these crabs, pikes and swans, these two squabblers
Martov and Plekhanov, who are conducting a desperate campaign against the
convocation of an extraordinary congress of the Party, one which we now need more
than ever.

[1]Plekhanov’s italics.—Lenin

[2]Plekhanov’s italics.—Lenin